A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.
Remember what happened when the Federal government tried to get some farmer to pay for the grazing land he was using? People several states away showed up with rifles, and they had no skin in the matter. If you tried to take their rifles, they (and many others) would try their best to kill you.
If America were full of Europeans, perhaps it would work. It isn't, so any notion of gun banning in the US is nothing more than wishful thinking at best.
Try, if you can, to provide an example of genocide that wasn't preceded by mass-disarmament of the targeted populace (assuming they hadn't been previously disarmed).
What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police? Or were they white people?
(In other countries, you can't just show up to political protests with weapons!)
I think you know the answer to that. The answer is kind of my point, isn't it?
These people are dangerous to push around because they have guns. They realize this. They are not going to relinquish that leverage without a fight.
This works until a politically opposing group shows up with guns as well.
Would you argue that the group most subject to being pushed around by the state in the US - young black men - would be better off arming themselves?
Could you back your statement with any data?
THe only thing I got proves otherwise:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/4b2648afd425728c741b77cef3ed793e/...
As an example of large differences in ratio, Finland has a fairly high gun ownership rate of around 55 guns per 100 people, but only 5 handguns per 100 people. And while it's common to have a rifle in your truck in rural areas, you can't legally carry around a handgun in the middle of Helsinki.
I just wanted to debunk this myth. As you pointed out there is more to it.
I was thinking a lot and I think any sort of gun ownership should be tied to employment and mental status. This is the easiest to filter out people like most of the mass shooters and criminal elements. I am not sure what is required in Finland to own a gun (any kind) but I am sure that it is not like here (at least in some states). There is an entire industry built on buying guns in states that anybody can get one and smuggling it to states with more strict laws. This just helps the criminals to get armed while exposing civilians to violence.
In Switzerland some of the ex-army people can keep they assault rifles and this drives down the chance of violent crime because the criminals know that there can be a trained soldier in the next house who won't hesitate to use the weapon. I try to dig up the study about this.
Please don't use downvoting for disagreement it is not supposed to be used for that. If you disagree reply and show the points where you disagree with me.
In addition, I don't know of any European nations that have outright banned guns, so that point isn't entirely correct.
> Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.
No, it's an entirely valid one and fits the discussion.
Politicians want to ban/control both of them for their own misguided, naive reasons, and in both cases doing so is impossible.